You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Allison

Citations: 98 Ohio St. 3d 322; 784 N.E.2d 695Docket: No. 2002-1779

Court: Ohio Supreme Court; March 4, 2003; Ohio; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, an attorney was permanently disbarred by the Supreme Court of Ohio following a series of professional misconduct violations. Initially suspended for excessive billing in an estate matter, the attorney continued to engage in unauthorized legal practice and failed to inform clients of his suspension. The disciplinary proceedings arose from three grievances; the first involved excessive fees charged as an estate executor, the second noted unauthorized legal representation during suspension, and the third concerned failure to act on a client's bankruptcy case after accepting payment. Despite seeking treatment for depression, it was not accepted as a mitigating factor due to insufficient evidence linking it to the misconduct. The attorney's ongoing violations during the suspension and failure to cooperate with the investigation further aggravated the situation, leading to his permanent disbarment. The board's decision emphasized the severity and persistence of the misconduct, with costs of the proceedings assigned to the attorney.

Legal Issues Addressed

Charging Excessive Legal Fees

Application: The respondent charged excessive fees as an executor of an estate, which led to disciplinary action.

Reasoning: The first grievance revealed that, after being appointed executor of an estate, he paid himself $19,600 in fees, far exceeding the $4,540.91 authorized by the probate court.

Failure to Cooperate with Disciplinary Investigations

Application: The respondent failed to respond to the disciplinary complaint, resulting in a default judgment against him.

Reasoning: Respondent did not respond, leading to a default motion referred to a master commissioner.

Mitigating Factors in Disciplinary Sanctions

Application: The respondent's claim of depression was not accepted as a mitigating factor due to lack of evidence linking it to his misconduct.

Reasoning: Although the respondent had sought treatment for depression, this was deemed insufficient to mitigate the recommended sanction, as no evidence linked his depression to the misconduct.

Practicing Law While Suspended

Application: The respondent continued to practice law and accepted fees from clients without informing them of his suspension.

Reasoning: The master commissioner concluded that Allison did not inform the plaintiff of his suspension, leading to further violations of professional conduct rules, including practicing law while suspended.

Suspension and Disbarment for Professional Misconduct

Application: The respondent was permanently disbarred due to repeated violations of disciplinary rules during a suspension period.

Reasoning: The board upheld the findings and sanction of disbarment, noting that the respondent's ongoing misconduct occurred during his suspension.